Left wingers are getting a bit scared

[turbobloke]

edh said:

turbobloke said:

Gaspode said:

STV has always seemed to me to be the best way of ensuring we get a set of MPs that more genuinely reflect the preferences of the electorate than FPTP, and it could be done easily within the current format, so you'd still get all the advantages of having a local constituency MP.

But, as the last referendum showed, the people aren't interested. That's democracy for you - we end up with the government we deserve, not the one we want...

I can't speak for others but I suspect I have company in not wanting to allow a coterie of maverick minority groups any access to national policymaking. It's bad enough when a couple of communities lose all sense and vote them in, at least in those cases the idiocy falls on a limited number of people in an area or two where the electorate was collectively daft enough to ask for it.

but the Lib Dems got into power under FPTP?

They didn't do that, they got to influence some policy areas as a minorty party within a coalition. Thank heavens their influence has been minor, it demonstrates my point entirely by the manner in which the LibDems have held up necessary reforms and slowed economic recovery with the backing of (now) 8% of the electorate if that.

edh said:

Anyway, some form of PR works in many countries, so why not here?

As above, tiny minority dross polluting policy.

edh said:

So many people are disenfranchised under the current system.

They don't get what they want, due to being a tiny minority view? Tough. If their ideas were so good, more people would support those views.

With 8% they might even get into a coalition

[mph1977]

turbobloke said:

Gaspode said:

STV has always seemed to me to be the best way of ensuring we get a set of MPs that more genuinely reflect the preferences of the electorate than FPTP, and it could be done easily within the current format, so you'd still get all the advantages of having a local constituency MP.

But, as the last referendum showed, the people aren't interested. That's democracy for you - we end up with the government we deserve, not the one we want...

I can't speak for others but I suspect I have company in not wanting to allow a coterie of maverick minority groups any access to national policymaking. It's bad enough when a couple of communities lose all sense and vote them in, at least in those cases the idiocy falls on a limited number of people in an area or two where the electorate was collectively daft enough to ask for it.

STV still has the potential for 'one man' constituencies , unlike the various party list forms of PR - as can be seen with the EU parliament and Bthe BNP and UKIP scraping a seat or two in some regions . in the one man constituency under STV it;s very similar to the Alternative Vote option rejected by tyhe Uk referendum , primarily becasue of the lack of appetitie for electoral reform from the labour party and to a lesser extent the Conservatives - given the structural advantage the Labour party has in the current UK constituency boundarioes that is unsuprising.

Much as it is fashionable to knock student Politics , sabbatical posts are often elected using STV or AV

in a 'staunchly' / 'rotten' / 'safe' seat STV or AV functions pretty much as FPTP as the 'safe' party gets in on first choice votes alone

the more marginal the seat the more interesting it becomes especially if you get to third or fourth round votes having knocked the loonies out and the secodn and third choice votes become key in meeting the quota to secure the seat or seats.

[edh]

turbobloke said:

edh said:

turbobloke said:

Gaspode said:

STV has always seemed to me to be the best way of ensuring we get a set of MPs that more genuinely reflect the preferences of the electorate than FPTP, and it could be done easily within the current format, so you'd still get all the advantages of having a local constituency MP.

But, as the last referendum showed, the people aren't interested. That's democracy for you - we end up with the government we deserve, not the one we want...

I can't speak for others but I suspect I have company in not wanting to allow a coterie of maverick minority groups any access to national policymaking. It's bad enough when a couple of communities lose all sense and vote them in, at least in those cases the idiocy falls on a limited number of people in an area or two where the electorate was collectively daft enough to ask for it.

but the Lib Dems got into power under FPTP?

They didn't do that, they got to influence some policy areas as a minorty party within a coalition. Thank heavens their influence has been minor, it demonstrates my point entirely by the manner in which the LibDems have held up necessary reforms and slowed economic recovery with the backing of (now) 8% of the electorate if that.

edh said:

Anyway, some form of PR works in many countries, so why not here?

As above, tiny minority dross polluting policy.

edh said:

So many people are disenfranchised under the current system.

They don't get what they want, due to being a tiny minority view? Tough. If their ideas were so good, more people would support those views.

With 8% they might even get into a coalition

You're happy with one-party local government? or all the tory voters in Manchester having no representation? Maybe with PR we'd get more diversity & politicians standing up for things they actually believe in rather than spouting the same old dull party lines.
How many Labour politicians are pro rail privatisation & anti trident yet won't come out and say it?
How many Tories think we should privatise the NHS or leave the EU? A lot more than the vocal few.

Everyone aims for that mythical middle ground and the swing voters in a few marginal seats

[turbobloke]

edh said:

turbobloke said:

edh said:

turbobloke said:

Gaspode said:

STV has always seemed to me to be the best way of ensuring we get a set of MPs that more genuinely reflect the preferences of the electorate than FPTP, and it could be done easily within the current format, so you'd still get all the advantages of having a local constituency MP.

But, as the last referendum showed, the people aren't interested. That's democracy for you - we end up with the government we deserve, not the one we want...

I can't speak for others but I suspect I have company in not wanting to allow a coterie of maverick minority groups any access to national policymaking. It's bad enough when a couple of communities lose all sense and vote them in, at least in those cases the idiocy falls on a limited number of people in an area or two where the electorate was collectively daft enough to ask for it.

but the Lib Dems got into power under FPTP?

They didn't do that, they got to influence some policy areas as a minorty party within a coalition. Thank heavens their influence has been minor, it demonstrates my point entirely by the manner in which the LibDems have held up necessary reforms and slowed economic recovery with the backing of (now) 8% of the electorate if that.

edh said:

Anyway, some form of PR works in many countries, so why not here?

As above, tiny minority dross polluting policy.

edh said:

So many people are disenfranchised under the current system.

They don't get what they want, due to being a tiny minority view? Tough. If their ideas were so good, more people would support those views.

With 8% they might even get into a coalition

You're happy with one-party local government?

That's the whole point - it's not about me being happy, or about any maverick sect getting to impose their madness on large numbers of victims. It's about what happens when everyone expresses an opinion.

FPTP offers a safeguard against harm from minority influence which is based on ideas that lack widespread support, unfortunately not completely as coalitions can sometimes include the likes of the LibDims, but nothing's perfect.

It's healthy for the country that some groups don't get too much incluence, long may it remain so. In any caase the recent referendum on electoral reform which the LibDem sponsored cause comfortably lost has kicked this into the long grass.

[edh]

I'm looking forward to labour winning a parliamentary majority with 35% of the vote

[turbobloke]

edh said:

I'm looking forward to labour winning a parliamentary majority with 35% of the vote

I'm not as it'll be bad news for what's left of the UK, but then I'll be better off personally. I'm looking forward to many more years of Labour in Opposition where they deserve to be for a very long time. If not, kerching, such is life. Not bad as hedging goes.

[JagLover]

edh said:

I'm looking forward to labour winning a parliamentary majority with 35% of the vote

and 30-32% of the English vote no doubt.

[toppstuff]

edh said:

I'm looking forward to labour winning a parliamentary majority with 35% of the vote

Thats a pretty sad state of affairs though, isn't it?

If we have, say, a 65% turnout in the GE and Labour get 35%, it will mean that the country will be led by a government that less than 1 in 4 people actively voted for.

[edh]

toppstuff said:

edh said:

I'm looking forward to labour winning a parliamentary majority with 35% of the vote

Thats a pretty sad state of affairs though, isn't it?

If we have, say, a 65% turnout in the GE and Labour get 35%, it will mean that the country will be led by a government that less than 1 in 4 people actively voted for.

Apparently not as FPTP is the best system

[turbobloke]

edh said:

toppstuff said:

edh said:

I'm looking forward to labour winning a parliamentary majority with 35% of the vote

Thats a pretty sad state of affairs though, isn't it?

If we have, say, a 65% turnout in the GE and Labour get 35%, it will mean that the country will be led by a government that less than 1 in 4 people actively voted for.

Apparently not as FPTP is the best system.

Those two statements aren't linked as you appear to claim.

FPTP may be the best available system but may still lead to a sad state of affairs on occasions.

The other systems may lead to sadder and sorrier states of affairs more often.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

edh said:

turbobloke said:

Gaspode said:

STV has always seemed to me to be the best way of ensuring we get a set of MPs that more genuinely reflect the preferences of the electorate than FPTP, and it could be done easily within the current format, so you'd still get all the advantages of having a local constituency MP.

But, as the last referendum showed, the people aren't interested. That's democracy for you - we end up with the government we deserve, not the one we want...

I can't speak for others but I suspect I have company in not wanting to allow a coterie of maverick minority groups any access to national policymaking. It's bad enough when a couple of communities lose all sense and vote them in, at least in those cases the idiocy falls on a limited number of people in an area or two where the electorate was collectively daft enough to ask for it.

but the Lib Dems got into power under FPTP?

They didn't do that, they got to influence some policy areas as a minorty party within a coalition. Thank heavens their influence has been minor, it demonstrates my point entirely by the manner in which the LibDems have held up necessary reforms and slowed economic recovery with the backing of (now) 8% of the electorate if that.

edh said:

Anyway, some form of PR works in many countries, so why not here?

As above, tiny minority dross polluting policy.

edh said:

So many people are disenfranchised under the current system.

They don't get what they want, due to being a tiny minority view? Tough. If their ideas were so good, more people would support those views.

With 8% they might even get into a coalition

'They don't get what they want, tough' clearly this includes those for whom Tory is the be all and end all of politics. Usual form is for this group to pine back to 30 years when Thatcher was P.M. Coming up to date it is fairly obvious the Tories are a spent force with political ideology barely moved on from the 1980's. Labour closely follow but at least this lot all row in the same boat (well almost). This leaves the minor parties, the Lib-Dems have now been in Government so hold an advantage over the other's.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

'They don't get what they want, tough' clearly this includes those for whom Tory is the be all and end all of politics. Usual form is for this group...

Which group, do you mean PHers just like you?

crankedup said:

...to pine back to 30 years when Thatcher was P.M.

We need a new law to sit alongside Godwin that covers invocations of Thatcher.

crankedup said:

Coming up to date it is fairly obvious the Tories are a spent force...

Like the Lib Dems aren't

crankedup said:

...with political ideology barely moved on from the 1980's. Labour closely follow but at least this lot all row in the same boat (well almost). This leaves the minor parties, the Lib-Dems have now been in Government so hold an advantage over the others.

Wipeout ahead.

[Gaspode]

turbobloke said:

I can't speak for others but I suspect I have company in not wanting to allow a coterie of maverick minority groups any access to national policymaking. It's bad enough when a couple of communities lose all sense and vote them in, at least in those cases the idiocy falls on a limited number of people in an area or two where the electorate was collectively daft enough to ask for it.

I don't think STV would deliver that, quite the reverse. In cases where there was no clear majority, the party that represented an acceptable alternative to most people who tend to dominate - so it favours centrist parties rather than extremes.

[turbobloke]

Gaspode said:

turbobloke said:

I can't speak for others but I suspect I have company in not wanting to allow a coterie of maverick minority groups any access to national policymaking. It's bad enough when a couple of communities lose all sense and vote them in, at least in those cases the idiocy falls on a limited number of people in an area or two where the electorate was collectively daft enough to ask for it.

I don't think STV would deliver that, quite the reverse. In cases where there was no clear majority, the party that represented an acceptable alternative to most people who tend to dominate - so it favours centrist parties rather than extremes.

Fair enough but I value the safety barrier of FPTP as being more reliable, others may disagree.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

'They don't get what they want, tough' clearly this includes those for whom Tory is the be all and end all of politics. Usual form is for this group...

Which group, do you mean PHers just like you?

crankedup said:

...to pine back to 30 years when Thatcher was P.M.

We need a new law to sit alongside Godwin that covers invocations of Thatcher.

crankedup said:

Coming up to date it is fairly obvious the Tories are a spent force...

Like the Lib Dems aren't

crankedup said:

...with political ideology barely moved on from the 1980's. Labour closely follow but at least this lot all row in the same boat (well almost). This leaves the minor parties, the Lib-Dems have now been in Government so hold an advantage over the others.

Wipeout ahead.

The group that I refer are the blue rinse brigade, to be seen at every Tory conference. PH is simply a internet forum of zero serious consequence, but provides some interesting threads nevertheless.
As the Lib-Dems quietly fade lets be thankful that the Country can rely upon the Tories and Labour. Strange that believers of democracy should take pleasure from the current downfall of a politically established party. Some might call it the ramblings of a distorted mind.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

edh said:

I'm looking forward to labour winning a parliamentary majority with 35% of the vote

I'm not as it'll be bad news for what's left of the UK, but then I'll be better off personally. I'm looking forward to many more years of Labour in Opposition where they deserve to be for a very long time. If not, kerching, such is life. Not bad as hedging goes.

In opposition to whom?

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

edh said:

I'm looking forward to labour winning a parliamentary majority with 35% of the vote

I'm not as it'll be bad news for what's left of the UK, but then I'll be better off personally. I'm looking forward to many more years of Labour in Opposition where they deserve to be for a very long time. If not, kerching, such is life. Not bad as hedging goes.

In opposition to whom?

The government of the day.

What else is HM Opposition in opposition to?

[NRS]

XJ Flyer said:

As I've said it isn't an issue of simplistic labels in terms of 'left' v right'.It is all about actual policies and being consistent in terms of an ideological position.In this case it is possible to hold both the so called 'left' and the so called 'right' in equal contempt.

IE what label do you attach to anyone who supports a line which sees working class advancement in terms of just income levels not the politics of envy in bringing the upper classes down.With a Capitalist economy run on Fordist lines which would obviously mean trade barriers and radical change in immigration policy to change the labour market from one of excessive supply to one of at least equilibrium,preferably excess demand,for the indigenous workforce.All under an anti federalist agenda in terms of both the EU and the UK.

Generally I have no idea what you're on about (and seems a lot of other people don't either), but from what I understand you're saying parties are hypocrites because they have policies that cross different ideological lines. The problem with that is the ideology you are outlining is a very general group of policies put together, and don't represent the real world of blending different beliefs/ balancing the opposing sides of the country together. So of course it doesn't fit into the "Fordist" block and so on. It seems you're just saying because they have one policy they should then follow the system that the policy comes from on all issues, which is just silly.

[XJ Flyer]

NRS said:

XJ Flyer said:

As I've said it isn't an issue of simplistic labels in terms of 'left' v right'.It is all about actual policies and being consistent in terms of an ideological position.In this case it is possible to hold both the so called 'left' and the so called 'right' in equal contempt.

IE what label do you attach to anyone who supports a line which sees working class advancement in terms of just income levels not the politics of envy in bringing the upper classes down.With a Capitalist economy run on Fordist lines which would obviously mean trade barriers and radical change in immigration policy to change the labour market from one of excessive supply to one of at least equilibrium,preferably excess demand,for the indigenous workforce.All under an anti federalist agenda in terms of both the EU and the UK.

Generally I have no idea what you're on about (and seems a lot of other people don't either), but from what I understand you're saying parties are hypocrites because they have policies that cross different ideological lines. The problem with that is the ideology you are outlining is a very general group of policies put together, and don't represent the real world of blending different beliefs/ balancing the opposing sides of the country together. So of course it doesn't fit into the "Fordist" block and so on. It seems you're just saying because they have one policy they should then follow the system that the policy comes from on all issues, which is just silly.

It is those who refer to it supposedly being all about 'left' v 'right' who seem to making all the rules regarding following either one or the other.

The only hypocrisy which I'm referring to is the fact that its impossible for anyone who is standing on an ideological anti federalist independence ticket to then try to also stand on exactly the opposite in the case of being pro Unionist/federalist.

IE it's possible to cross the artificial boundaries of so called 'left' or 'right' but there's no way that anyone can contradict the ideology which they are standing on within that.

In which case as I've said in this case I support Capitalism which the so called 'left' would see as being 'right' wing.

I also support Fordism which means a high wage environment in a labour market that is biased as far as possible in favour of demand not supply with strong unions being an integral part of that too.Which the so called 'right would view as being 'left wing'.

I also support a policy of anti immigration and trade barriers in favour of domestic industry.Which would obviously upset both the so called 'left' and the so called 'right'.

In which case what I've described above is an ideology which crosses all the artificial boundaries of so called 'left' as opposed to so called 'right'.But if I were to support anything which isn't totally consistent with or which contradicts any of the above that would make me a hypocrite.As in the case of Farage ( rightly ) criticising the SNP for being selectively both nationalist and federalist.While at the same time leading a party which is obviously ideologically selectively federalist and anti federalist itself.

IE there is a big difference between crossing the artificial and erroneous boundaries of so called left and right as opposed to blatant contradictory hypocricy in stated ideology in the form of selectively supporting the opposing ideologies of two totally opposite forms of government.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 26th September 23:42

[Ridgemont]

XJ Flyer said:

It is those who refer to it supposedly being all about 'left' v 'right' who seem to making all the rules regarding following either one or the other.

The only hypocrisy which I'm referring to is the fact that its impossible for anyone who is standing on an ideological anti federalist independence ticket to then try to also stand on exactly the opposite in the case of being pro Unionist/federalist.

IE it's possible to cross the artificial boundaries of so called 'left' or 'right' but there's no way that anyone can contradict the ideology which they are standing on within that.

In which case as I've said in this case I support Capitalism which the so called 'left' would see as being 'right' wing.

I also support Fordism which means a high wage environment in a labour market that is biased as far as possible in favour of demand not supply with strong unions being an integral part of that too.Which the so called 'right would view as being 'left wing'.

I also support a policy of anti immigration and trade barriers in favour of domestic industry.Which would obviously upset both the so called 'left' and the so called 'right'.

In which case what I've described above is an ideology which crosses all the artificial boundaries of so called 'left' as opposed to so called 'right'.But if I were to support anything which isn't totally consistent with or which contradicts any of the above that would make me a hypocrite.As in the case of Farage ( rightly ) criticising the SNP for being selectively both nationalist and federalist.While at the same time leading a party which is obviously ideologically selectively federalist and anti federalist itself.

IE there is a big difference between crossing the artificial and erroneous boundaries of so called left and right as opposed to blatant contradictory hypocricy in stated ideology in the form of selectively supporting the opposing ideologies of two totally opposite forms of government.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 26th September 23:42

That makes you a modern day mercantalist. The fact that you claim to support capitalism, but then advocate trade barriers, wage control, immigration control etc suggests you don't believe in capitalism.

And you banging on about federalism/unionism hypocrisy would be fine in the world of the written constitution. But that is highly unlikely to be where we end up; it is perfectly feasible we end up with some kind of settlement that allows a semi federal structure within a union. The question will be whether the settlement is flexible enough to deal with separatist notions. If it is the the union will hold. All your other points then become moot, and relegated to constitutional arcana.